Product DescriptionStep up to SSD speeds and inject new life into your laptop or desktop PC with a durable solid state drive from SanDisk. You will experience quicker boot-up and shutdown, quicker application response and data transfer speeds than with a typical hard disk drive, at just a fraction of the cost of a new computer. You will boost your cool factor too with a solid state drive that doesn’t overheat, make noise or burn through battery. SanDisk SSDs are tested and proven to be resistant to shock, vibration and temperature extremes, so your SSD keeps working, no matter where or how hard you use your computer. The SanDisk SSD Dashboard provides a full-service software suite that includes proprietary SanDisk tools for monitoring and optimizing your system’s performance and highlights available offers from other software providers for cloning and security applications. With read/write speeds of up to 480 MB/s/400 MB/s, the 480 GB SanDisk SSD Plus delivers enhanced performance in an entry-level drive from a brand you know you can trust.

Groups

Am tempted to buy 2 of these and put them in a RAID 0 (to replace an old 64gb SSD), but reviews on the Samsungs look a lot better.

29th Apr 2016

It's just really the reports of the failure rate that worry me with one report having experience of around 20% failure within 6 months (he bought 50):

"I would recommend against buying this product as we have experienced a very high failure rate of approx 20 percent within approx six months. We have probably bought about 50 of these in total . What tends to happen is that Windows can report SMART errors. If one ignores this, the next stage is that when the computer is rebooted the SSD is not readable and in some cases isn't even shown on the SATA bus."

29th Apr 2016

Dragon32

Am tempted to buy 2 of these and put them in a RAID 0 (to replace an old … Am tempted to buy 2 of these and put them in a RAID 0 (to replace an old 64gb SSD), but reviews on the Samsungs look a lot better.

​True, but this is bottom end peoduct, cant be compared to any Samsung even 750 as price is way lower.

29th Apr 2016

Owned a few of these over the past year and have not had any failures yet to date. Not sure these drives are worth putting into RAID 0 though.

29th Apr 2016

Like I say I was still tempted with getting 2 of these - the idea of the RAID 0 was not only to get slightly better performance, but also if one drive failed I'd hopefully still be running on the other one.

I bit the bullet and went for a Samsung 850 Evo in the end as Amazon had it down to just under £110 and also I saw some testing that the Evo Pro was not really any better than the standard Evo.

29th Apr 2016

rosstheboss1972

With read/write speeds of up to 480 MB/s/400 MB/s, the 480 GB SanDisk SSD … With read/write speeds of up to 480 MB/s/400 MB/s, the 480 GB SanDisk SSD Plus

Read the description carefully as it's misleading. The 120GB Plus version has read/write speeds of up to 520 MB/s/180 MB/s.

Having said that I voted hot as this is still a decent deal.

Edit: If you want something faster you can pick the 120GB Ultra II version up which has read/write speeds of up to 550MB/s/500MB/s for collection only from Currys/PC world for £34.99 as posted here:

Like I say I was still tempted with getting 2 of these - the idea of the … Like I say I was still tempted with getting 2 of these - the idea of the RAID 0 was not only to get slightly better performance, but also if one drive failed I'd hopefully still be running on the other one.

That's not how RAID 0 works. Yes, it may improve performance slightly.But it splits data between the drives. If either drive fails, you could lose all of the data in the array. It does not give you any redundancy.

29th Apr 2016

vclaw

That's not how RAID 0 works. Yes, it may improve performance slightly.But … That's not how RAID 0 works. Yes, it may improve performance slightly.But it splits data between the drives. If either drive fails, you could lose all of the data in the array. It does not give you any redundancy.

​Yes in RAID0 you'd get ~240GB with the data alternately striped over each drive.If you want redundancy then you want RAID1, which mirrors the data on both drives but you just get ~120 GB usable space.

30th Apr 2016

Wow another SSD priced at exactly what you'd expect it to be priced at. You saw it here first folks.

30th Apr 2016

Bought one this morning. Had flubit offer at £29.13 (or something like that) but couldn't wait 5 days for the non-amazon supplier to deliver

30th Apr 2016

I have one of here in a laptop with a dual core i5. Doing normal computer things, 20 chrome tabs, Spotify, steam couple of documents, a spreadsheet and stuff it is just as quick as my quad core desktop with a high end pro drive.

Tldr; ssds are blazing quick.

All of them. Benchmarks and reviews have to really highlight the differences otherwise their would be no point.

Raid 0 is pointless. Did it once and it was so much hassle for very little gain - buy a 240GB. Raid 1 only helps if a single drive dies; won't help with accidental deletion, corruption, viruses, ransomware, localised destruction or power surges. Get a single drive with frequent backups to a HDD.

Hot

30th Apr 2016

Dragon32

It's just really the reports of the failure rate that worry me with one … It's just really the reports of the failure rate that worry me with one report having experience of around 20% failure within 6 months (he bought 50):"I would recommend against buying this product as we have experienced a very high failure rate of approx 20 percent within approx six months. We have probably bought about 50 of these in total . What tends to happen is that Windows can report SMART errors. If one ignores this, the next stage is that when the computer is rebooted the SSD is not readable and in some cases isn't even shown on the SATA bus."

Are these SMART errors reported in an 'in your face cannot miss manner' or do you need to go looking for them?

30th Apr 2016

Dragon32

Like I say I was still tempted with getting 2 of these - the idea of the … Like I say I was still tempted with getting 2 of these - the idea of the RAID 0 was not only to get slightly better performance, but also if one drive failed I'd hopefully still be running on the other one.I bit the bullet and went for a Samsung 850 Evo in the end as Amazon had it down to just under £110 and also I saw some testing that the Evo Pro was not really any better than the standard Evo.

RAID 0 interleaves the data between the drives for speed, if one drive fails you will lose your data, often irretrievably. RAID 1 mirrors data and is for redundancy. RAID 0 is classed as RAID but because it doesn't offer redundancy it's an oxymoron to call it RAID.

RAID is not a backup and is never a backup. RAID should never be employed as a backup solution as RAID is for redundancy i.e. keeping the system running. RAID 1 is NOT a backup as the data is live and can be destroyed or messed about with, any user errors are replicated across all RAID volumes. RAID is NOT a backup!

Edited by: "fishmaster" 30th Apr 2016

30th Apr 2016

fishmaster

Wow another SSD priced at exactly what you'd expect it to be priced at. … Wow another SSD priced at exactly what you'd expect it to be priced at. You saw it here first folks.

Agree, £30 to £35 seems to be the price range nowdays.

1st May 2016

Dragon32

It's just really the reports of the failure rate that worry me with one … It's just really the reports of the failure rate that worry me with one report having experience of around 20% failure within 6 months (he bought 50):"I would recommend against buying this product as we have experienced a very high failure rate of approx 20 percent within approx six months. We have probably bought about 50 of these in total . What tends to happen is that Windows can report SMART errors. If one ignores this, the next stage is that when the computer is rebooted the SSD is not readable and in some cases isn't even shown on the SATA bus."

Any info on the usage? I imagine if your buying 50 it's not standard home use, I'd also be interested in what psu's they are using, I imagine if your buying 50 of the cheapest ssd's your likely to be saving money else ware too... Other than NAS I can't imagine 50 other than budget build.pcs, all speculation but it helps to have the details!

1st May 2016

Dragon32

Like I say I was still tempted with getting 2 of these - the idea of the … Like I say I was still tempted with getting 2 of these - the idea of the RAID 0 was not only to get slightly better performance, but also if one drive failed I'd hopefully still be running on the other one.

In RAID 0 (Striping) if one harddisk fails, all data is lost, if you want better read performance you want RAID 1 (Mirroring) at the expense of write performance

1st May 2016

Now £34.98

2nd May 2016

subhi

In RAID 0 (Striping) if one harddisk fails, all data is lost, if you want … In RAID 0 (Striping) if one harddisk fails, all data is lost, if you want better read performance you want RAID 1 (Mirroring) at the expense of write performance

Incorrect RAID 1 is mirroring only and doesn't offer any performance increase over RAID 0, in fact it's a performance decrease. RAID 0 is not RAID anyway, so if you want redundancy you start at the very least with RAID 1.

RAID 0 - Not RAID but used for maximum I/O performance. If any volume dies then all data is lost, but possibly recoverable by data recovery expert.RAID 1 - Mirroring, basic level of redundancy, if one volume dies you can replace the disk and rebuild the array, if both volumes die, you recover from your backup and then replace both disks and reinstall or partition as applicable as it's not necessary to have an OS on the RAID volumes, depending on whether you want redundancy for your OS or your data.

Edited by: "fishmaster" 2nd May 2016

2nd May 2016

fishmaster

Incorrect RAID 1 is mirroring only and doesn't offer any performance … Incorrect RAID 1 is mirroring only and doesn't offer any performance increase over RAID 0, in fact it's a performance decrease.

That was my initial instinct and that would be true for writing data, but then it dawned on me: with a RAID 1 set-up, can the controller not READ from both volumes simultaneously, in a similar fashion to that in which it does with RAID 0? The data is available on both volumes, after all. Obviously, it would take a little bit more intelligence in the controller, but RAID has been around for decades so I'm sure they would have found a way to implement it by now 8-)

2nd May 2016

3guesses

That was my initial instinct and that would be true for writing data, but … That was my initial instinct and that would be true for writing data, but then it dawned on me: with a RAID 1 set-up, can the controller not READ from both volumes simultaneously, in a similar fashion to that in which it does with RAID 0? The data is available on both volumes, after all. Obviously, it would take a little bit more intelligence in the controller, but RAID has been around for decades so I'm sure they would have found a way to implement it by now 8-)

In RAID 1 (mirroring without parity or striping), data is written … In RAID 1 (mirroring without parity or striping), data is written identically to two drives, thereby producing a "mirrored set"; … The array continues to operate as long as at least one drive is functioning. With appropriate operating system support, there can be increased read performance, and only a minimal write performance reduction;…

and:

Some array controllers are capable of reading from both disks in a … Some array controllers are capable of reading from both disks in a classic 2 drive RAID 1, I have never seen a low end controller (including IDE, SATA or SCSI) do this, they all tend to read from only one disk.

and:

Right on the money. RAID 1 will theoretically give you a boost, but only … Right on the money. RAID 1 will theoretically give you a boost, but only under the right circumstances - rather like RAID 0, I should point out.